In the last segment of our next generation browser benchmarking and
comparison, we looked at user interface features and installation
details. We also benchmarked install times and application
launch times. We now will turn our attention to CPU and
memory usage in this segment. We'll also briefly contrast
security in the next gen browsers. This segment will be
followed by a third and final installment in which we'll examine
performance in popular benchmarks and standards support.

4. Resource Usage

One of the most critical aspects of a program is the amount of
resources it uses per the amount of work it does. We measured
memory and CPU usage for each browser with ten tabs open and loaded --
DailyTech, AnandTech, CNET, CNN, Sports Illustrated, Gamefaqs, Google,
Yahoo, Bing, and Facebook (logged in). We then took
measurements after 15, 20, and 25 minutes of operation.

When it comes to memory, Firefox really shows its worth. This
may be surprising to some as early in its development the Firefox
browser was known as a memory hog, due to memory
leaks. This has completely turned around and it is now the
slimmest entry. Namoroka uses significantly more memory than 3.5.2, but
hopefully this is just one of the rough edges that are to be expected
of an alpha release.

Looking at the rest of the pack, Opera deserves an honorable mention
for a close second in memory usage. Safari and Chrome, on the
other hand, were both memory hungry. However, no application
was quite as bad when it came to memory as Internet Explorer 8, which
used nearly twice the memory of its closest competitor.

Turning to the CPU, Opera was in the lead for least average
use. Opera 9.6 also led for the lowest maximum observed CPU
use. Opera 10.0 did show a rather high maximum
usage. This is due to a brief, rather uncharacteristic,
spike. This appears to be a rather isolated occurrence, but
nonetheless we kept the result.

Chrome, Safari, and Internet Explorer were all rather poor when it came
to CPU use. Chrome 4 ate up the most CPU, topping at an
unpleasant maximum of 64 percent. Firefox, on the other hand,
showcased low usage (with no add-ons installed), though 3.6a1 was a bit
more CPU hungry than 3.5.2. Again, hopefully these issues
will be resolved before release.

5. Security:

Having looked at the resources used, its also important to look at what
is being done with them. We already concluded that Opera
provides the most built in features (non-security) in our first review
(though Firefox wins when add-ons are considered). But what
about security features?

The below table illustrates some highlights of these browsers' track
record:

Browser

Tab/Process Isolation

Private Browsing Mode

Popup Blocking

Ad-Filtering (JS, Flash)

Anti-Phishing

Malware Blacklist

Unpatched Security Flaws, Secunia

Unpatched Security Flaws, SecurityFocus

Opera
9.6

No

No

Yes

Yes, click required

Weak

Weak

0

2

Opera
10.0

No

No

Yes

Yes, click required

Weak

Weak

0

2

Firefox
3.5

No

Yes

Yes

Via add-on

Moderate

Moderate

0

0

Firefox
3.6

No

Yes

Yes

Via add-on

Moderate

Moderate

0

0

Chrome
2

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Weak

Weak

0

0

Chrome
3

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Weak

Weak

0

0

Chrome
4

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Weak

Weak

0

0

IE
8

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes (via InPrivate Filter)

Strong

Strong

2

16

Safari
3

No

Yes

Yes

Via add-on

Weak

Weak

0

0

Safari
4

No

Yes

Yes

Via add-on

Weak

Weak

0

0

As you can see, security is a rather confusing topic to rate the
browsers on. On one hand, IE
8 offers an excellent private browsing mode, tab isolation,
and great blacklisting of malicious sites. On the other hand,
its InPrivate Filter doesn't catch all ads. IE 8 is also the
most frequently attacked and exploited browser, though Microsoft puts
great effort into patching as quickly as possible.

Despite this, IE 8 for the very inexperienced/naive user is probably
the best bet as it blocks more blatantly malicious sites than the rest
of the field. Microsoft-sponsored research puts this block
rate at 81 percent versus the next closest competitor -- Firefox -- at
27 percent. This may be a bit of an exaggeration, but
Microsoft deserves praise for its progress on this front.

Chrome offers good overall protection with tab isolation, a private
browsing mode and less vulnerabilities, but it is victim to probably
the most ads of any of the browsers. Firefox is a close
runner up to IE 8, especially when add-ons are considered.
However, it lacks tab isolation. Opera and Apple have both
put a fair deal of thought into their security efforts, but they just
aren't as strong or focused as those of Microsoft, Mozilla, and Google.

Note: All benchmarks
were performed in 32-bit Vista on a Sony VAIO laptop
with 3 GB of RAM, a T8100 Intel Processor (2.1 GHz), and a NVIDIA 8400
GT mobile graphics chip. The number of processes was kept consistent
and at a minimum to reflect stock performance.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Why are we comparing memory usage when most of us have 2-4GB of RAM? And we don't know how much information is cached for quick access so it doesn't have to be grabbed from the Internet again or loaded from a hard drive. I just find such a comparison silly.

The goal isn't to have the lowest amount of memory usage. The goal is to have the best performance in a web browser possible. Having the former does not mean that one is attaining the latter.

Also all the browsers have less than 1GB in their benchmark results. With a netbook's ONLY useful feature being is it is able to show a webpage on a light weight package, it succeeds and not a single one of these browsers is worth change to, or from on a netbook.

Semi rude comments aside, the main problem I have with this set of articles is NORMALLY when you display any benchmarks you qualify them before hand with the "test hardware specs" so you can say "OH on a netbook it is 500MB of RAM but I am running a i7 with 24GB of ram so it will be very different"

You comment regarding memory/cpu footprint is semi valid, but anyone that buys a netbook "stock" isn't going to care about benchmarks, especially when a bigger/faster hard drive is less than 80 bucks, and 2GB of the fastest ram a netbook can handle is less than 30 bucks, both keeping the total price of the average netbook well below 400 bucks.

You sir need to take a step back. First off, you're assuming that people only do one thing at a time on a netbook which is just simply false. Not that it's meant for heavy mutlitasking, but come on now. Also, I don't think you've looked at netbooks recently. Most netbooks are already price over $300. If they wanted to spent over $400, easily, then they'd probably just get a cheap ass laptop. Got myself a cheap laptop for $380 that spanks netbooks, even with upgrades that you provide. Not only that, but what kind of average user installs upgrades on a laptop at all. Heck, most advanced users don't even do that.

If you believe that 500MB is no big deal then go right ahead and use IE. Even if it's not 500MB like it says it's still the highest memory hog out of all of them, even if you take user comments as 100% truth. And that wouldn't be caching websites in RAM cause that would be very stupid. Ram is limited space, although very fast, and website info isn't exactly needed ASAP. HDD makes much more sense, which is why EVERY web browser has an option to change the amount of HDD space the cache uses.

Of course, if we're just arguing about the average user then we might as well just stop there because this wouldn't even matter. They very rarely do research on products at all. Means they are likely to use either FF or IE since they have the biggest market shares. But since we're all reading and commenting on this article let's assume we're all slightly above average.

The whole point is that the memory usage in IE is absurd no matter how you look at it and it doesn't provide anything in return. If that's acceptable to you..... then you are the sucker every company is hoping to hook.

Memory usage becomes an issue when you are running multiple programs at once, and the amount of virtual memory the system uses can lead to performance degradation. As a result, increased memory usage can lead to decreased performance when you have multiple browsers or tabs open at once.

There are MANY people out there still running Pentium 4 based computers with only 256MB of RAM(which wasn't enough even at the time of purchase), so for those people, IE is a bad choice, and really, the best choice without buying a new computer, would be to use a browser with the lowest memory usage available, even if features may be minimal. From that point of view, an old copy of Netscape 3 or 4 might end up being a better browser if the memory footprint is smaller(it's been years, but Netscape 4 SHOULD have a smaller memory footprint, even if it would run slower on a high end machine).